State v. Pieper
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
FILED IN THE OFFICE OF THE CLERK OF SUPREME COURT SEPTEMBER 29, 2022 STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA IN THE SUPREME COURT STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA 2022 ND 176 State of North Dakota, Plaintiff and Appellee v. Emma Charlotte Pieper, Defendant and Appellant No. 20220084 Appeal from the District Court of Grand Forks County, Northeast Central Judicial District, the Honorable M. Jason McCarthy, Judge. AFFIRMED. Per Curiam. Andrew C. Eyre, Assistant State’s Attorney, and Vanessa Sigette, under the Rule on Limited Practice of Law by Law Students, Grand Forks, North Dakota, for plaintiff and appellee; submitted on brief. Challis D. Williams, Grand Forks, North Dakota, for defendant and appellant; submitted on brief. State v. Pieper No. 20220084 Per Curiam. [¶1] Emma Pieper appeals from an amended criminal judgment after entering a conditional plea of guilty to driving under the influence and driving under suspension. On appeal, she argues that the law enforcement officer lacked a reasonable and articulable suspicion to justify the stop of her vehicle, thus violating the Fourth Amendment and the North Dakota Constitution. We conclude the officer’s observations were sufficient to raise a reasonable and articulable suspicion justifying the traffic stop. Kappel v. Dir., N.D. Dep’t of Transp., 1999 ND 213, ¶¶ 9-12, 602 N.W.2d 718 (An officer may have reasonable and articulable suspicion after observing “‘a series of acts, each of them perhaps innocent in itself, but which taken together warranted further investigation.’”). We summarily affirm under N.D.R.App.P. 35.1(a)(2) and (7). [¶2] Jon J. Jensen, C.J. Gerald W. VandeWalle Daniel J. Crothers Lisa Fair McEvers Jerod E. Tufte 1
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
